PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-1381 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL PORTANOVA, Appellant ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. Action No. 3-18-cr-00015-001) District Judge: Hon. James M. Munley _____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 4, 2019 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, SCIRICA and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: May 27, 2020) Frederick W. Ulrich Office of Federal Public Defender 100 Chestnut Street Suite 306 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Appellant Francis P. Sempa Office of United States Attorney 235 North Washington Avenue P.O. Box 309, Suite 311 Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Appellee ______________ OPINION ______________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Michael Portanova pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography.1 Applying a statutory sentencing enhancement, the District Court determined that his prior Pennsylvania conviction for possessing and distributing child pornography2 was a conviction relating to the possession of child pornography and sentenced him to a mandatory fifteen-year term of imprisonment.3 1 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). 2 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6312(c)–(d). 3 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). 2 We conclude, first, that under our “looser categorical approach,” 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1)’s “relating to” language does not require an exact match between the state and federal elements of conviction, and second, that the provision is not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, we will affirm. I. In 2017, Portanova admitted to downloading child pornography onto his cell phone, on which investigators found sixty-three videos depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Portanova subsequently pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). An individual who violates § 2252(a)(2) is subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence if that person “has a prior conviction . . . under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.”4 This enhancement also applies to a prior state conviction “relating to . . . the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography.”5 Portanova had previously been convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography under Pennsylvania law.6 At sentencing and over Portanova’s objection, the District Court concluded that his state conviction triggered the 4 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). 5 Id. 6 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6312(c)–(d). 3 fifteen-year mandatory minimum enhancement. Portanova appeals this sentence. II.7 On appeal, Portanova makes two arguments that the District Court erred in concluding that his conviction triggered the mandatory minimum provision. First, he asserts that § 2252(b)(1) requires a narrow analysis under the formal categorical approach, and that state child pornography offenses that are broader than the federal child pornography definition, including his, cannot constitute mandatory minimum predicate offenses.8 Second, Portanova argues that § 2252(b)(1)’s broad “relating to” language is void for vagueness.9 Accordingly, Portanova argues that he is not subject to the fifteen-year mandatory minimum enhancement. 7 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals